 | Peace Corps: One of the Best Faces of America Teresa Heinz Kerry celebrates the Peace Corps Volunteer as one of the best faces America has ever projected in a speech to the Democratic Convention. The National Review disagreed and said that Heinz's celebration of the PCV was "truly offensive." What's your opinion and can you come up with a Political Funny? |
| By Admin1 (admin) (pool-141-157-22-73.balt.east.verizon.net - 141.157.22.73) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 9:49 am: Edit Post |
National Review says Teresa Heinz Kerry's "celebration of the Peace Corps volunteer, as the great American face, was truly offensive"
National Review says Teresa Heinz Kerry's "celebration of the Peace Corps volunteer, as the great American face, was truly offensive"
[Excerpt]
Teresa decided to show off her languages — and what was especially hilarious was her shout-out to the "Franco-Americans." Yeah, all twelve of them in Maine. And how about "tutti gli italiani"? Italian speakers in this country number about three now. No one speaks Italian in Little Italy, for example.
I like to believe that Teresa's showing off will not play well, but that is merely a wish.
In addition, her celebration of the Peace Corps volunteer, as the great American face, was truly offensive. Everyone loves the Peace Corps volunteer — certainly every liberal. But the Peace Corps volunteer doesn't liberate Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Europe, or any other place. It's the soldier. He does the hard and awful work of making it possible for the Peace Corps volunteer to show up.
Mrs. Kerry also indicated membership in the "No blood for oil!" crowd, saying that "alternative fuels will guarantee that not only will no American boy or girl go to war because of our dependence on foreign oil, but also . . ."
Can the Republicans make nothing of that?
A final point: I've heard Democrats say a thousand times this week that "environmentalism is good economics." Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But reason is barely allowed here.
| By battuta (158.232.86.214) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 1:07 am: Edit Post |
Better to have a prospective first lady who speaks five languages, then an incumbent president who can't even speak English.
| By RPCV (60.45.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net - 66.171.45.60) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:44 am: Edit Post |
It's unfortunate the author finds Heinz-Kerry's remarks about PCVs "offensive". I could understand how he might find it offensive that she omitted the men and women who served or have served in the military in her remarks, but he needn't inappropriately project his frustration by denegrating the honorable service and character of PCVs.
Furthermore, Heinz-Kerry probably didn't feel it was necessary to add to the support that John Kerry is so vocally and rightly giving to veterans and those currently serving in the military. She was balancing her remarks against those being made by him and others at the convention, while delivering her personal messages in her own voice. Note to author: "Soldiers" serve in the army, and there are three other military services (in addition to the Army, you should honor those in the Navy, Marines and Air Force).
One could also argue that long term, cumulative contributions by PCVs and other programs of the third pillar of foreign policy (i.e., development, defense and diplomacy being the other two) help prevent the need for military interventions.
| By daniel (user-uinj551.dialup.mindspring.com - 165.121.148.161) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:53 am: Edit Post |
I have to admit I liked Teresa's speech and I also thought to myself how lucky John Kerry is to have a wife so broad minded and introspective in thought.
I am voting for Kerry, but not out for his policy toward Peace Corps. He still has not shown his full concern for volunteer's safety and volunteers who may have been wrongfully separated due to health and safety issues over the years. He has not recognized it and missed the hearing on Safety recently. We will be watching his reactions and if it doesn't go in the right direction we will be "full force" against his campaign people namely Michael Whouley inc.. And for anybody who knows politics, you know you are running into the establishment and the DNC. We will prove to them and the American public we are right, if they ignore our issues.
Myself and other Massachusetts citizens have expressed our concerns over the years and have been rebuffed. We now have a legal team going to work on these issues. Remember, we helped in getting that GAO Report on Safety and wrote part of the language in this current bill.
Being a volunteer in Mali, I appreciate Teresa's knowing the issues of Africa and knowing languages. The National Review is really funny group. They insult people who want to express that it is good knowing and learning languages. I think people know there are more than three Francophone's in the US. To the National Review, you are barking up the wrong tree. What the conservatives are nervous about is her reaching out to that many populations who don't usually vote. They don't want them in the process. Teresa helped by speaking to them.
The National Review should honor Peace Corps. Just because of the name of Peace Corps and the Jack Kennedy legacy, they attack it and ridicule it. Most serious military people understand the value of Peace Corps. Some of solider's most rewarding work in service is building schools, infrastructure and teaching at the local level about America.
It is not who is a better service or who is tougher. It is about being United in bringing the hope and opportunity we have in our country.
In Watching her speech, I thought people don't speak like this in public anymore. When they do. The ansewer is get the "towel head" and put downs about "immigrants". That is the under current and I am glad Teresa is speaking another language of understanding and not fear and hate out of ignorance and not knowing the values of another culture.
To Bill Buckley and the National Review Staff, go find a tax issue to take up, but this one is something that will only embarass your readers.
Daniel
| By John Sellers (h-68-164-81-60.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net - 68.164.81.60) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 6:28 pm: Edit Post |
My mouth dropped open at NR comment. Losing sight of what America is all about is one thing. But being "truly offended" by a positive and constructive comment about the Peace Core made in the National Spotlight is "truly" around the bend.
| By --jim (cache-ntc-aa03.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.8) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 7:04 pm: Edit Post |
Truly offensive, was how I found this National Review excerpt. As expected it is the first of years of character assassinations to be expected against the next First Lady. How sad to see the fear and insecurity, of those feeling threatened by an intelligent, literate, interesting and active lady.
I found her speech inspiring and invigorating. She, here from a world perspective, has much to offer us. Her insights are both perceptive and valuable.
Her suggestion of Energy Independence, is an exciting idea whose time has come. There is much our creative entrepreneurship can offer the world. So much more than the misery of ugly policies based on Death and Destruction.
It is time to ask "What if?" and move on, leaving the neanderthalic Neo-Cons, wallowing in their own putrid excrement.
We have a future great with promise and opportunity, or doomed to disaster. We've faced worse before; and we can solve these problems now -- if we pull together with our best, rather than our worst. Help is on the way.
| By bakazungu (35.0.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net - 66.171.0.35) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 10:05 pm: Edit Post |
Do non-"liberals" hate the Peace Corps?? I know its not for everyone to become a volunteer, but are there really people out there who hate us? And if so, why?? Even if you ignore all the good we do that could concievably prevent or help repair a situation like Iraq, even if you think its a bunch of tree-huggers, why would you hate us? I don't care if people I don't know don't love me, whether because I'm an RPCV or for whatever reason, but I don't like people being offended because I didn't go overseas as a soldier!
| By Andy Witthohn (cache-dtc-aa07.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.116.11) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 8:22 pm: Edit Post |
Consider the source! Mr. Buckley and the National Review have always been the voice of the military-industrial complex and those who benefit from it's success. He has no respect for those who attempt to better communicate with the rest of the world by learning their language(s) because he feels the rest of the world needs to speak English. The Peace Corps and its volunteers have been the best foreign policy America has ever had because of their efforts to learn the language and culture of the people they sought to serve.
| By Ron Seibel (cache-rf04.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.252.100) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 8:37 pm: Edit Post |
The only thing that offended ME, was the reference to the "young" face of Peace Corps.
Hell, I was 57 when I went to KZ. The average age in my Kaz 1 group was 44. The Kaz 2 group had four or five people over 70.
The people who claim to represent the American people don't know anything about the people. Not just this beautiful lady, but every president calls the Peace Corps YOUNG --- IN ERROR. Too bad only the rich and uninformed can become president.
These are the ignorant type who try to fight a COVERT enemy with CONVENTIONAL troops, like Bush.
| By Andy Witthohn (cache-dtc-aa07.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.116.11) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 8:40 pm: Edit Post |
Consider the source! Mr. Buckley (and the National Review)has always been the voice of the military-industrial complex and those who benefit from its success. He has no respect for those who learn other languages to better communicate with the rest of the world, because he believes that the rest of the world should learn English.
Peace Corps Volunteers have long been the best part of American foreign policy because of their efforts to learn the language and culture of the people with whom they work. America has been far better served in the last 40 years by its citizens who have volunteered to work shoulder to shoulder with citizens in the developing nations of the world than it has been served by citizens who have been sent to shoulder arms in an effort to force American economic policy down the throats of those same developing nations through the force of arms.
| By Ryan (ool-182e6745.dyn.optonline.net - 24.46.103.69) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 9:03 pm: Edit Post |
Perosonaly, I find Heniz to be offensive as a whole rather than just what she said as an recent RPCV. As one of the very few "conservatives" who are RPCV's, I could care less if Heniz got up at the conevntion and sang "Don't Cry for me Argentina." True, I am well aware that I am outnumbered by other current PCV's and RPCV's but I am proud to be supporting President Bush and don't need Heinz nor Kerry to give me advice about my life.
| By Ryan (ool-182e6745.dyn.optonline.net - 24.46.103.69) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 9:04 pm: Edit Post |
Forgive me if my spelling if off a bit!
| By Jessica Lewis (67-51-182-34.cpha.com - 67.51.182.34) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 9:39 pm: Edit Post |
Only thing I think she missed in the speech is that she referred to PCVs as young. As we all know PCVs cover a wide variety of ages, one of the things that makes the organization so rich and diverse. Being miffed that she didn't mention the military I can understand, but being "truly offended" by her comments regarding the Peace Corps seems a bit of a strech.
| By John F (c-24-10-102-20.client.comcast.net - 24.10.102.20) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 9:40 pm: Edit Post |
Offensive??? isn't that overstating just a bit?? Geez I'm beginning to really hate politics!!
| By don beck (host-217-159-14-177.satlynx.net - 217.159.14.177) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 10:00 pm: Edit Post |
Praise for the PCV... long overdue.
BUT not for the "face" we present to the world.
RATHER that we participate with fellow human beings from all over the world to learn from each other and discover how to live better together.
OFFENSIVE is seeing Peace Corps as a way to "American-ize" the world, the arrogance that we are the superlative. Our US citizenry needs to "World-ize" itself---to find the rest of the world has more to offer us than we have to give.
Peace Corps service is the exchange of ideas and mutual learning between PCVs and other peoples. We learn more than we teach, get more than we could ever give. An understanding of the world that wants to live peacably is what we learn and bring home.
I am not offended by Ms Kerry's words; I only want her and others to see the TRUE beauty of Peace Corps.
What we BRING HOME
is the wonderment,
NOT what we GIVE OUT.
--RPCV, Bolivia 67-69
| By don beck (host-217-159-14-177.satlynx.net - 217.159.14.177) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 10:04 pm: Edit Post |
Praise for the PCV... long overdue.
BUT not for the "face" we present to the world.
RATHER that we participate with fellow human beings from all over the world to learn from each other and discover how to live better together.
OFFENSIVE is seeing Peace Corps as a way to "American-ize" the world, the arrogance that we are the superlative. Our US citizenry needs to "World-ize" itself---to find the rest of the world has more to offer us than we have to give.
Peace Corps service is the exchange of ideas and mutual learning between PCVs and other peoples. We learn more than we teach, get more than we could ever give. An understanding of the world that wants to live peacably is what we learn and bring home.
I am not offended by Ms Kerry's words; I only want her and others to see and speak the TRUE beauty of Peace Corps.
It is what we BRING HOME
that is awesome,
NOT what we GIVE OUT.
--RPCV, Bolivia 67-69
| By Mary Mohrman Duda (cache-gtc-aa03.proxy.aol.com - 149.174.164.7) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 10:20 pm: Edit Post |
What a pleasure to have a future First Lady recognize Peace Corps Volunteers as "heros!! I loved being a PCV and believe that the work we did and more importantly the friends we made and the positive feelings about the U.S. we gave to the local people we worked with is the best possible way for our country to avoid making enemies and war. Our troops are heros that everyone recognizes as they should but it is nice to have someone in the public eye finally give PCVs some praise! Shame on the National Review for not appreciating PCVs just because we carry books and shoves instead of guns.
| By Richard Koch (24.236.202.39.gha.mi.chartermi.net - 24.236.202.39) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:31 pm: Edit Post |
I am a RPCV from Malaysia. When I was there teaching in 69-70, it cost $14000/yr for ALL my costs in country. Two hundred miles north and east, it cost $31000/yr to keep a private in country in Vietnam. I was replaced by a Malaysian. Twenty years later, my grandstudents made computer disk drives that powered the American computer expansion in the 90's to the benefit of both countries. Today Malaysia is relatively friendly to the USA, despite its 40% Islamic majority. As for the folks in Vietnam, killing communists surely did a lot of good for the 57000 American soldiers who died there, not to mention the expense. Today, the USA recognizes the Democratic Republic of Vietnam; the same could have happened in the early 1960s. The National Review should get a life. Use of military force is an admission that all other avenues except stupidity have been exhausted.
| By Robert Wieland (cache-dtc-aa07.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.116.11) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:47 pm: Edit Post |
If the National Review cares to throw down the gauntlet at such an undefensible spot, good for them. If they wish to alienate RPCVs and their friends and families, this is not necessarily a bad thing. I just wonder if they would include in their disdain the PRTs in Afghanistan who, though soldiers, are trying to work as ersatz peace corps volunteers. What is their preferred image for America's face to the world? Men with guns? As the NR and its readership work their way further toward the back fringe of America's political landscape I say, godspeed!
| By Michael Anthony Lanigan (0-2pool21-72.nas16.oakland1.ca.us.da.qwest.net - 65.141.21.72) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 1:55 am: Edit Post |
Hardly worth the time to refute anything in this hit piece. He just plain doensn't like liberals and Democrats. The Peace Corps was just one of his many "I don't likes." He and Rush Limbaugh would have a wonderful lunch together. I wonder what expense account they would charge it to.
| By Victor Vuyas (dialup-4.243.203.155.dial1.sanfrancisco1.level3.net - 4.243.203.155) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 3:43 am: Edit Post |
I'm more concerned by the conservative among us. Ryan, do you make $250,000 a year? Otherwise, and if not, what is it you'll be proud to endorse about our selected president. His stand on Iraq? What potato cart did you fall off of? His tax incentives to businesses that take their production off shore and cost us jobs? His "recovery" program, his "No Child Left Behind" program that leaves most of them behind? His environmental policy? I'm no fan of Kerry, but I have yet to hear a reason to vote for Bush. I'd like to hear yours.
| By Rick Knox (dial81-131-210-139.in-addr.btopenworld.com - 81.131.210.139) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 5:56 am: Edit Post |
Please don't judge all conservatives by the NR's remarks. I note they were exerpted out of context. But they still seemed way over the top to me. As an RPCV from Ethiopia (62-64), I've seen a lot of political water go under the bridge. As a speaker of Swahili, French, still a little Amharic, and a little English, I commend Ms. Kerry. I value her appreciation for the good the PC has done. Someone should. The "smiling" face plays well in the USA, where "nice" is a national value (as in "Have a nice day"). But in France, the image of the "smiling" American doesn't go down well because the French don't "smile" unless they have a good reason to do so....and if you've never met before, they have no reason to trust you just because you "smile." (They think you're trying to fool them, seduce them, or that you're just an idiot.) I know, as an expat American extrovert living in Wales, sometimes what we expect the world to love about us just doesn't compute. But it's tough when Republicans and Democrats try to publically gut each other, using broadswords for greatest effect and prejudice as the fuel for their self-righeous criticisms. In the words of one of the most famous of ancient world leaders, King Solomon, "A hot-tempered man stirs up dissention, but a patient man calms a quarrel (Proverbs 15:18). AS the PCs are taught to do, let's try to respect one another and discuss issues in a civil tone. Otherwise, we'll never convince anyone of our respective, hopefully well thought-out positions. We'll just leave the field littered with bodies. Hardly worthy of a "Peace" Corps.
Rick Knox
Ethiopia 1 (62-64)
| By Brent Hepburn (100.charlotte-14rh15-16rt.nc.dial-access.att.net - 12.76.228.100) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 6:54 am: Edit Post |
How can anyone find offensive the depiction of the human face as smiling and hopeful as anything less than beautiful? No, Heinz-Kerry's remarks were not in the least offensive. They were positive and a grateful acknowledgement of all the good PC has done in her native country and around the world.
Perhaps the National Review thinks the true face of America is the now-permanent snarl and snare of the present administration?
Brent Hepburn, RPCV, Mauritania
| By Janet Glor Post (h0030ab04b39e.ne.client2.attbi.com - 24.34.179.97) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 7:04 am: Edit Post |
I don't recall ANY previous pre-election campaigner, presidential or otherwise, EVER extolling the virtues of Peace Corps Volunteers. It is ONLY because of Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech that I listened to John F. Kerry's speech and FINALLY decided for whom to vote this fall. There are some people in this country who do not consider from whither our country derives. To speak another language, sometimes learned only because of Peace Corps experience, opens up not only our own minds and hearts, but of those with whom we come in contact and it earns lifelong friends for America. Most people respect people who can speak another language....to speak five languages fluently, and the understanding that comes with it, is to be greatly admired. As a result, though she's of a different generation and milieu, I daresay Teresa Heinz Kerry as our First Lady will have as much an effect upon the world at large as did Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy. The "National Review" is simply spewing its sour grapes before having eaten them. (And to which "Little Italy" does the writer refer? S/he should have the pleasure of visiting Boston, where the musicality of the Italian language is heard along every sidewalk in the North End, not to mention in my own suburban hairdresser's. Ah, forget it...who really CARES what the writers of the "National Review" think? Like one of the previous commenters said, consider the source.
| By patty mcgrath (all-concert-x.concert.com - 12.6.145.17) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 7:37 am: Edit Post |
It is indeed a sad day when someone finds positive remarks about the Peace Corps, and the sacrifice of its volunteers (young and elder)'truly offensive'. I agree that the PC experience is one of learning, and being gifted by the people we were supposed to be 'serving'. The people of Colombia '66-68 gifted me with their love, hope and generosity. These are indelible lessons. They taught me more than how to speak Spanish. This exchange of respect may be 'truly offensive' to the National Review. I don't think our current military enlisted men and women would find it offensive. My heart goes out to them - sent on a mission for specious reasons. They see it up close and real. I find sending men and women into harms way for lies - TRULY OFFENSIVE. How sad - the source is so out of touch with reality.
| By Bob Trudeau (ip68-9-133-164.ri.ri.cox.net - 68.9.133.164) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 7:38 am: Edit Post |
Praising the Peace Corps as our best face does not mean ignoring our troops. But in our tradition -- until the present occupant of the White House -- having troops overseas is the result of diplomatic failure: necesssary but not our "best" face. Our troops are often necessary, but they are not our "best face" -- that is reserved for our more peaceful envoys.
PS: there are more than 12 french speakers in my family alone, and none of us is from Maine. Typical ignorance shown in the NR.
| By carlwagner (user199.54.196.65.in-addr.arpa - 65.196.54.199) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 10:28 am: Edit Post |
I wrote this to the NR Managing editor
jnordlinger@nationalreview.com
Regarding your recent comments of July 28th, of Theresa Heines at the DNC, in Boston....
You wrote...
"In addition, her celebration of the Peace Corps volunteer, as the great American face, was truly offensive. Everyone loves the Peace Corps volunteer — certainly every liberal. But the Peace Corps volunteer doesn't liberate Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Europe, or any other place. It's the soldier. He does the hard and awful work of making it possible for the Peace Corps volunteer to show up."
I read your varied comments on the speeches at the DNC in Boston last week with much interest. However, on the point of Theresa Heines Kerry's references to the Peace Corps, you can do better, Mr Norlinger, and a response to you (and your audience) is merited.
As an editor, your business is to craft thoughts and ideas and to show wisdom in restraint, or so I would have thought. Are you aware that the Peace Corps is a non-partisan element of the US Government's overall international relations. You seem to confuse the fact that volunteers and staff are republicans and democrats alike. You apparently have not seen the effect that serving in the Peace Corps has to increase patriotism for and pride in our country those Americans who volunteer two years of their lives and those whom they meet and influence. Your insinuation that Americans abroad who are not storning Afghanistan or fighting in Iraq are not serving the good of the country is 'nauseating', to use your phrase, and to use mine -- unAmerican.
Intellect is given to us, not to draw up partisan rhetoric, but to help ourselves, those we encounter in our lives and the country we love. You do us (yes I served in the Peace Corps in the newly independent country of Kazakstan 10 years ago) and the U.S. a disservice.
| By shirlene1allred (wcs2-moffett.nipr.mil - 198.26.118.37) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 10:36 am: Edit Post |
Good speech by Ms Kerry and loaded with political hype, but I do take offensive to certain things she did mention. It is true that predominately the typical Peace Corps volunteer is young but there are the older ones, the ones who have gave of their time to serve after retirement and there are those who decided to take a break from their mid-life to serve others. These wonderful people are not "young" in years but do have fresh minds and bring into the mix of who is a PCV the more experienced and "older" outlook. Another label Ms. Kerry applied to the image of a PCV is that of "liberal". Sorry, but I and others who had served as PCVs aren't all that "liberal" or "left wing" or even "conservative" or "right wing", but "middle" and attempt to see both sides and make our own decisions independent of the labels. Sometimes I decide to be "liberal" on certain issues like abortion, and other times my decisions are "conservative" on issues of religion. And I resent it when comparisons are made between the military and the Volunteer. Sorry, but are there not former PCVs who were once in the military and than served as volunteers or have joined the military after their Volunteer service? And like someone mentioned before, our soldiers also do good works in times of peace like build schools, roads, health clinics, and help in areas outside of military areas. They are also citizens and has a vested interest in the future for all people, the safety of themselves and their loved ones. I work with the military and they aren't "ogres" and "baby killers". We all have our purpose and use and should work together to build a better future and maybe one day we will not need the reason for a military. Also, I appreciate Ms. Kerry's use of another language in her speech. I wish there was more of a push in our public schools to encourage the learning of a second language (or more). Having learned another language has given me an enrichment and appreciation for the depth of my first language, English. This also was expressed by my former students that their learning English have also enriched their experiences and given a different viewpoint differing from their culture. The road flows both ways. I am disappointed that too many Americans haven't learned another language and this had limited their views, but those who had learned another language are enriched by acquiring knowledge of different viewpoints and expressions (besides swear words), and a better ability to express themselves in their own language. Besides, learning a second language now enables the speaker to learn other languages. I have started with German, in PC I learned siSwati, picked up on Afrikaans, have a spattering of Russian, Spanish and Latin. No bad from a start in English. Another thing with knowing languages, it makes creating passwords easier.
| By luisa rich fels (user-2ivfkg4.dialup.mindspring.com - 165.247.210.4) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 11:04 am: Edit Post |
it's hard to know exactly what nr objects to in her remarks. no matter what we think about the war in iraq, theresa heinz kerry's generous thought about peace corps volunteers cannot add or take away from whatever our troops represent. i'm glad to think i'm still represented by folks, young, old, beautiful, ugly who have goodness in their hearts and a willingness to spend it on/with folks they've never met. even if our troops are smiling as they drop their bombs, at least the pcv's are not dropping bombs--that's one difference i applaud! brazil '64-66
| By MelissaEker (cpe-69-76-157-59.kc.rr.com - 69.76.157.59) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 11:47 am: Edit Post |
The comments from the National Review are very ignorant and negative. I personally know five Italian-Americans who live in Kansas alone. The Midwest has probably the lowest percentages of these wonderful nationalities, I know New York and DC probably has a ton more. Other nationalities show Americans respect by taking the time to learn our native language. When you are immersed in a culture and must speak their language, it is the most heartwarming thing to hear somebody speak in your native language. Unfortunately most Americans are not forced to learn a different language. Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry has gained more of my respect and truly expressed what America really is, a country full of immigrants and different nationalities. I am proud to be part of that and invite this NR reporter to open their eyes to this.
| By Kay Muldoon (109.washington-30rh16rt-31rh15rt.dc.dial-access.att.net - 12.77.46.109) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 12:17 pm: Edit Post |
Having thankfully never read any publication of the National Review, I find their take on Teresa Heinz Kerry's excellent convention speach not just a shock, but truely offensive and deeply disturbing. Their Sparta vs Athens mentality bodes ill for America.
| By Danny (sherman.state.gov - 169.253.4.21) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 1:33 pm: Edit Post |
"But the Peace Corps volunteer doesn't liberate Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Europe, or any other place. It's the soldier. He does the hard and awful work of making it possible for the Peace Corps volunteer to show up."
OK, I buy that. But maybe, just sometimes, we did the hard and awful work that helped make it unnecessary for the soldier to show up. The soldier has a lot on his plate these days and could probably use the help.
| By Bob (mail.fpa.org - 64.59.26.34) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 1:53 pm: Edit Post |
Just another example of this administration's (and its supporters at the National Review and elsewhere) have totally missed the fact that at least one half of the battle we are fighting worldwide is a battle of ideas. While the military has certainly effectively lived up to its role as the world's premier fighting machine (an important and necessary duty), PCVs will continue to fight the other battle -- the one for hearts and minds. After all, last week's BIPARTISAN 9/11 report expressed the urgency of just such a mission.
| By Bob (mail.fpa.org - 64.59.26.34) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 1:59 pm: Edit Post |
Just another example of this administration's (and its supporters at the National Review and elsewhere) have totally missed the fact that at least one half of the battle we are fighting worldwide is a battle of ideas. While the military has certainly effectively lived up to its role as the world's premier fighting machine (an important and necessary duty), PCVs will continue to fight the other battle -- the one for hearts and minds. After all, last week's BIPARTISAN 9/11 report expressed the urgency of just such a mission.
| By Bob (mail.fpa.org - 64.59.26.34) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 2:01 pm: Edit Post |
Just another example of this administration's (and its supporters at the National Review and elsewhere) have totally missed the fact that at least one half of the battle we are fighting worldwide is a battle of ideas. While the military has certainly effectively lived up to its role as the world's premier fighting machine (an important and necessary duty), PCVs will continue to fight the other battle -- the one for hearts and minds. After all, last week's BIPARTISAN 9/11 report expressed the urgency of just such a mission.
| By John Rude (adsl-66-124-199-148.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net - 66.124.199.148) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 4:37 pm: Edit Post |
Here is the message I sent to National Review:
Having lived in a Muslim culture (near the Sudan border in Ethiopia) I empathize with adjustments young Americans must make in Iraq -- to heat, hostility and confusion based on their ignorance of language and culture. If their only tool is weaponry, then everyone appears to be an enemy. With much difficulty (nearly dying from heat and illness) I learned that people have much more to bind them together than to divide them. This is a fundamental lesson about humanity that Theresa Heinz Kerry understands, most Peace Corps volunteers and many soldiers understand -- and you don't.
| By Bill Clapp (h000103bb00a3.ne.client2.attbi.com - 24.128.11.155) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 4:55 pm: Edit Post |
The Peace Corps was never meant for liberation.
It was and is a joint development between the US and many nations to build bridges and sidewalks of understanding between cultures. It has accomplished its mission many thousands of times over, in bringing back to the US more capable citizens, with linguistic and cross cultural skills that they can share with others.
Ms Heinz-Kerry was kind to recognize us and our contributions. The National Review, which I often enjoy, was decidely off base. Soldiers certainly deserve credit for the tough and dangerous work they undertake, but volunteers,as another face of America, are not "truly offensive". They are just a different facet of our culture and their mere existence is a credit
to our country.
I think the author just fell into a stereotypical hole. Where was his editor!
RPCV 70-72 Micronesia
| By Richard Henrikson (66-42-0-47.oak.dial.netzero.com - 66.42.0.47) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 5:31 pm: Edit Post |
Maybe if we had more Peace Corps Volunteers out in the world we wouldn't need as many soldiers to "liberate" countries.
As an "senior" RPCV (Paraguay 1995-1997), I say the "youth" of the Peace Corps is right on the mark!
| By Timothy E Barnes (cache-dtc-aa07.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.116.11) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 6:13 pm: Edit Post |
Is it harder to build or distroy?
Is it more challenging to follow orders,
or listen to people prioritize what they wish to change in the world and help them acomplish their goals?
I don't mean to be pitting military against Peace Corp service, both are valuable.
Service is service.
I was an enlisted man in the Marine Corp from 1957 - 1959.
I was a Peace Corp volunteeer in Paraguay from 1998 - 2000, with my wife.
The second tour of service was was the more challenging, no contest.
I think Teresa understands the difference, obviously others don't.
| By christina nassy (dialup-4.183.137.221.dial1.tampa1.level3.net - 4.183.137.221) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 6:18 pm: Edit Post |
I like many other PCVs and RPCVs are tired of hearing 'why would you join the Peace Corps when you could have gone into the military.' It is a hard thing to hear over and over again and many times I hear it from people who would never join the military themsleves. Peace Corps Volunteers are hard working and very brave indiviuals of all ages and backgrounds. They are not just your sons and daughters but many of them are your mothers, fathers and grandmothers, grandfathers too. Respect US!
RPCV Paraguay (2001-2003)
| By Randolph Marcus (pcp08128500pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net - 69.138.223.42) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 9:00 pm: Edit Post |
The National Review comment on Teresa Heinz Kerry's Peace Corps remarks is refreshingly upfront in broadcasting the magazine's sheer stupidity. To state there are virtually no French or Italian native speakers in the US is flat out wrong. To state soldiers do the work that makes it possible for the PCV to show up is pure ignorance. No US servicemen fought in Togo, Mali, Ghana, Senegal, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, or so many other countries where PCVs served honorably and made friends for America. And maybe, in part at least, due to their service, no servicemen or women will ever have to fight in these countries.
When William Buckley was an active editor at NR, I respected the publication for its intellectual grasp, even though I disagreed with its ideology. Today, it seems NR has descended to the level of the Drudge/Limbaugh/Hannity all-mouth/no brain commentary -- but that, I suppose, makes it an apt defender of the current administration.
RPCV Ethiopia VII (1966-68)
| By Clark Efaw (user-11fa2ss.dsl.mindspring.com - 66.245.11.156) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 9:40 pm: Edit Post |
Ms. Heinz-Kerry is not a flaming left wing nut. She was a Republican up until 2003. She switched parties because she was apalled at the politics of hate that had moved into her party. The National Review article exemplifies that bitter wing of the party. It's not a good idea to get too offended by the extremist voices that don't really speak for the people they purport to represent. Both parties are composed mostly of reasonable people.
Ms. Heinz-Kerry has always been remarkably broad-minded and free of adherence to partisan ideology. I think it is remarkable that the Kerrys met and married as members of opposite parties and remained true to their own beliefs. As both a veteran and an RPCV I can appreciate people who see reason on both sides. Some call it waffling. I call it consistent.
| By sandrew (199.0.228.130) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 10:19 pm: Edit Post |
What a shame --the politics that divide us so!! While I served as an AMERICAN Peace Corps repesentative I do not remember once that anyone asked if I was a Republican or Democrat!! Theresa Hines Kerry???? Who is she, other than a non-"American" with her millions, and to even comment on my life as a Peace Corps volunteer is just plain silly coming from her mouth! Listen you all, "Shove it" for even giving her any attention!!!
| By mike osborn (majoroz) (cache-dtc-aa07.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.116.11) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 2:35 am: Edit Post |
Did you folks read the entire article? Somewhat unfamiliar with the National Review, it appeared to me to be, not a presentation of news, but more in the line of an editorial.
In that vein, I found it humerous. If anyone was offended by it, might I suggest that you are seriously humor impaired or that your PC time has created a terminal version of political correctness.
Yes, I did view her presentation of self as her "Don't cry for me, Argentina" screed.
Obama, now.........that is something else. Here, we have a huge talent.
cheers
oz, RPCV, Micronesia, 1994-96; USAF, 1958-81
| By Larry Steffensen (cache-ntc-aa03.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.8) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 11:52 am: Edit Post |
I would echo the sentiments of Randolph Marcus: "The National Review comment on Teresa Heinz Kerry's Peace Corps remarks is refreshingly upfront in broadcasting the magazine's sheer stupidity. To state there are virtually no French or Italian native speakers in the US is flat out wrong. To state soldiers do the work that makes it possible for the PCV to show up is pure ignorance. No US servicemen fought in Togo, Mali, Ghana, Senegal, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, or so many other countries where PCVs served honorably and made friends for America. And maybe, in part at least, due to their service, no servicemen or women will ever have to fight in these countries.
When William Buckley was an active editor at NR, I respected the publication for its intellectual grasp, even though I disagreed with its ideology. Today, it seems NR has descended to the level of the Drudge/Limbaugh/Hannity all-mouth/no brain commentary -- but that, I suppose, makes it an apt defender of the current administration."
I served both in the Peace Corps (Peru 64-66) and in the US Army (Vietnam 67-68) While I am proud that I served in the Army as a draftee, I am far more proud of my two years in Peru as a Peace Corps Volunteer.
| By Shari Jacobson (m-222.susqu.edu - 216.87.204.222) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 12:13 pm: Edit Post |
Here's what I sent him. I tried to phrase my comments in language that would resonate with him. Btw--I hardly ever visit this site, but everyone's comments remind me of how many interesting, articulate, and informed people I had the pleasure of meeting in the Peace Corps!
Dear Mr. Nordlinger,
I am writing in reference to your assessment of Mrs. Kerry’s comment about the Peace Corps as “offensive.”
I served as a Peace Corps volunteer from 1984-86, in what was then Zaire (now the Congo). For many reasons, it was the most formative experience of my life. Of interest to your publication, perhaps, is that it made me far more patriotic than I had been. I was proud to be from a country that sponsored a program such as the Peace Corps, and I was proud to serve my country in this way.
Of course the Peace Corps is not a substitute for the military, but neither is the military a substitute for the Peace Corps. Both contribute to our national interests in different ways.
I do know that everywhere I have traveled in Africa, which over the years has included East, West, and Central Africa, Africans have tremendously positive feelings about people from the United States, largely because most of the Americans they have met have been Peace Corps volunteers. In contrast to the Europeans they have known, largely in colonial and neo-colonial contexts, American Peace Corps volunteers impress them as people who live in their villages, teach in their schools, and help them with their fish ponds and animal husbandry. The Americans they know see themselves as equals and partners, while the Europeans tend to treat them in patronizing and paternalistic ways. You could not hope for better PR for the United States than the Peace Corps.
I realize it’s election time and both sides seek to polarize issues. Perhaps that’s your job as a columnist, to draw a line in the sand and say, “This is Republican territory and it’s good and this is Democrat territory and it’s bad.” But the fact is that Peace Corps volunteers are Republicans and Democrats. They are middle-aged business people and retired school-teachers, college grads and farmers, and some have served in the military as well. I made Peace Corps friends from rural South Dakota and New York City, from southern California and West Virginia. As average Americans, Peace Corps volunteers don’t lay claim to any one ideology. It is not necessary for you, as a conservative, to demonize the Peace Corps.
Very truly yours,
Shari Jacobson
| By Brian Holste (dialup-4.168.66.60.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net - 4.168.66.60) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 8:41 pm: Edit Post |
I just sent this out.
To Mr. Jay Nordlinger (National Review)
In reference to: Your lovely article "nausiating speeches plus ice cream" http://www.nationalreview.com/impromptus/nordlinger200407280736.asp
I'm here to tell you Jay, the Peace Corps Volunteer is the BEST SIDE of America. It is the great American face, just like Teresa said. It was in the Peace Corps that I learned that working people solve problems, not money, not politicians, not talking people that write silly articles.
When I deployed to the Middle East as a platoon leader in Iraq and Kuwait, I instilled this in the people that I supervised. I worked my butt off there like I did in the Peace Corps. I worked my butt off as my wife delivered our first child many miles away. And when I couldn’t go home to see the birth, I kept working. And when they extended us time and time again, I kept working. And when Iraqis shot at convoys I was on, I kept working. And when marines came to me begging for help to up-armor vehicles for Falluja, I worked to help them.
Over the course of a year, my unit logged 2.2 million miles of transportation missions in Iraq. At the end of it, they gave me a bronze star, which I felt uncomfortable receiving, because my true reward I had already received: we brought everyone home alive. It took a lot of work to do this, Jay. If you think that the work ethic of the farmers that I worked with in the Peace Corps had nothing to do with this, you are wrong.
But, Jay, I agree with you, there is a problem with America. As my transportation unit redeployed back to the states, it lost so many people. I need good strong Americans like yourself to join us. I can train you on how to drive a Heavy Equipment Transport (HET) so that you can redeploy with us back to Iraq. My ~~~~~~s are low, Jay, come on, what do you say?
[CPT] Brian Holste
Long Beach, CA
P.S. My unit address is below Jay. And I’m serious, I need people like you to drive my trucks. You can contact me at benisto@msn.com.
California Army National Guard
1498TH Transportation Company Combat HET
March AFB, Moreno Valley, California 92552-6460
| By petulisa (mmds-216-19-46-161.sqpk.az.commspeed.net - 216.19.46.161) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 9:42 pm: Edit Post |
I LOVED Teresa's speech in it's entirety. I served in the South Pacific, in Tonga, for some of the wrong reasons. Nixon was in the White House, and I felt so much anger and bitterness about the dwindling war in Vietnam and the lack of American pride engendered by Nixon that I fled to the Peace Corps. It doesn't matter, that it was Kennedy's speech that set the wheels in motion. It was the need to distance myself from the ugly spirit of my country that got me there. Those three years brought about a renewal in my love of country and a new faith in myself. I urge all young Americans to consider the Peace Corps- we are face of America at its best in all our rudeness and crudeness- and what we bring back is priceless. Oh yes, one of my favorite PC moments was the group "turning the Presidential photo around" when Nixon left office!
| By Ronald A Schwarz, Colombia One 1961-1963 (cache-prs-aa02.proxy.aol.com - 195.93.102.2) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 8:01 am: Edit Post |
As is often the case, Buckley gets it backwards. We would be safer, richer (culturally and probably economically) if millions more Americans spoke Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, French, Spanish etc..
| By Ron Kuhlmann (192.59.99.9) on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 4:14 pm: Edit Post |
Can we not celebrate both PCVs and the military? They are not mutually exclusive. When I was a PVC in the Philippines in the late 1960s some of my friends and classmates were serving in Vietnam. In the great scheme of human history, I'm not sure what any of us did to make the world a better place but we were clearly able to coexist doing the jobs we had been given.
It's also nice to think of a president that will not have to apply for a passport once elected and has, perhaps, even met real ordinary foreign citizens.
| By Colin Gallagher (adsl-64-173-177-133.dsl.mtry01.pacbell.net - 64.173.177.133) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 12:22 pm: Edit Post |
National Review is a worthless rag not even worth reading. Some time ago I was in my hometown on a visit to my parents. It is a conservative town with conservative ways and National Review is on the shelves in the grocery stores. I picked up a copy of National Review and noted that its cover seemed to advocate an invasion of Canada. An article within, not even half in jest, asserted that Canada would be best under U.S. rule, and that an invasion would in effect save Canada from itself.
I ended up giving that copy of National Review to my Salvadoran (and now Canadian citizen) brother-in-law, who suffered the ill effects of the Reagan policies on El Salvador, and was forced to flee his home country when his government publicly sought to destroy him. He could not take refuge in the United States, but managed to find political asylum in Canada, where he lives happily to this day. It gave him great amusement to observe the arrogance of the National Review and the sanctimonious posture of the extremist neoconservatives that National Review represents.
In many ways, the writers (most of whom are Judeo-Christian extremists) for the National Review are no different in their views than are the increasingly publicized Muslim extremists. Each has their own views which exist in practical terms only for the purpose of the exclusion of others.
| By Joe Pachioli (cache-dtc-aa07.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.116.11) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 3:58 am: Edit Post |
Offensive is the NR editor's pathetic attempt to come off as humorous by making a preposterous, unfounded, moronic statement with zenophobic overtones about the number of US Citizens who are no longer fluent in the languages of their ancestors.
The reason why the majority of Americans descended from non-Enlish-speaking ancestry (Italians, Poles, Germans, et al) are unable to speak the languages of their forbears can be traced directly back to the bigotry of too many self-proclaimed blue-bloods who happened to be in this Country prior to the arrival of each wave of immigration.
A very real fear of being ostracized and even persecuted - not love of the English language - compelled the non-english speaking immigrants to abandon their native tongues and heritage. During my youth (mid 1940's ~ early 1960's, my paternal(Italian) and maternal (Polish/German)grandparents would never speak their native languages in my presence, believing that this was the American thing to do and in my best interest (safety). This sad circumstance deprived not only myself but countless others over the course of our Nationhood of the unique opportunity to be bilingual and even trilingual. Had past generations of Americans been able to learn the languages of their forefathers in parallel with the English language, I would like to believe that US foreign policy would not have deteriorated into the chaos prevalent today.
Back in the early 1960's, I - like many of my generation - was motivated to serve in the Peace Corps by Kennedy's immortal "Ask not what..." challenge, and by the best seller of the late 1950's, The Ugly American'. As a result, I was blessed with the challenge and opportunity to experience the cultures of Chile, Mexico and Brazil, and to become trilingual in the process. The NR editor's unconscionable remarks denigrating those who would dare to know or learn a foreign language smacks of smug arrogance and prejudice, and serves notice that the 'Ugly American' malaise still lingers among us - even in the most 'learned' (tongue in cheek) circles.
Notwithstanding the above, there is reason for hope. Over the last 3 decades, a positive change has been developing in the US what with the influx of new waves of immigration, the continuing growth of interest in genealogy, modern telecommunications and globalization. The increasing number of young bilingual people in the work force (Chinese, Spanish, Vietnamese,etc)and the growing desire to know and be proud of our 'roots' should overcome our provincialism and repair our cross-cultural ties with the rest of the world.
I particularly enjoyed reading Brian Holste's remarks above and the challenge to the NR editor to 'put his money where his mouth is' by signing up for active duty in Iraq. In the same vein, we should offer the NR editor the opportunity to spend 2 years as a humanitarian volunteer working for a pittance in the Appalachians or the inner cities, or Bangladesh (some people there do speak english !). Whether he or his kind would have the right stuff for either of these tasks is another matter.
Joe Pachioli
Chile XIII
| By james (adsl-69-224-218-132.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 69.224.218.132) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 10:16 pm: Edit Post |
This guy needs to grow up. The peace corps goes to fix what military destroys. lets get it right. Also the military recieves more benefits then peace corps. We are an organization that help people build and grow(that would be ourselves included) Our country has much to learn from the countries that we serve and buckley has much to learn from peace corps volunteers who have sacrificed so much for the cause of peace in the world.
james burmester
the gambia(98-00)
| By RPCV (230.47.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net - 66.171.47.230) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:53 pm: Edit Post |
James - Great message on the whole, however, let's not turn this issue into PC vs. military. Both should be honored. Both are necessary. The author's mistake is found in his dismissal of PCV service. Our fellow citizens, allies and foreign residents who have served or are currenlty serving in the military or in PC or in other productive capacities deserve our repect and support.
| By john paskevicz (d47-69-146-182.nap.wideopenwest.com - 69.47.182.146) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:04 am: Edit Post |
I really enjoy reading the anecdotes of RPCVs and others resulting from
the feedback to the T. Kerry speech. I hope someone is collecting these
and other stories and someday will put them all together as a series of
books.
The back-and-forth between military and PC service is amusing. I recall
back in ‘66 and ‘67 when serving in Varanasi, India our house, which was
near the train station, would collect all manner of foreign tourists
coming through town. Among these were a number of veterans of the war
in Vietnam who, following their service, decided to tour the world.
These guys were interesting. Two most memorable were an Army Special
Forces (SF) senior NCO who worked with indigenous natives on the coast
of Peru, and another, a pilot who flew a supply helicopter in Vietnam.
Both (and I don’t recall their names) had completed their service and
were moving on to better things in life.
The SF soldier talked about his service providing medical help and
protection to a fishing village too poor to help themselves, and
vulnerable to raids from bandits and communists working in the area. He
spent most of his time however, learning from the locals how to fish in
the ocean from a small sailing boat to provide food for the people in
his area of operation. He said his experience during that period was
the best that ever happened to him. He also noted that the .45 cal
pistol he carried got all rusted up because he didn’t need it. When I
asked him about his subsequent service in Vietnam...he said he preferred
not to talk about it. Our war in Vietnam convinced him that he did not
want to make the military a career.
The pilot loved his job of flying a helicopter but, he hated one aspect
of it. Every so often after delivering a sling load of supplies to
combat troops in the field, he would have to wait for his ship to be
loaded with body bags containing the remains of troops from recent
action. He couldn’t stand this task. After a while he lost count of
the number of bags he delivered to the casualty collection point. It
was the defining issue that made him pass on a career he dreamed he
would have for life. The mental trauma of carrying full body bags from
the battlefield was too much for him to bear. I really felt bad for
this guy. We took a short trip on the Ganges river the next day (there
was a communal riot the night before) and the sight of a headless body
floating by put him on edge and he cut his visit short.
One of the common remarks from these visitors was that we Peace Corps
volunteers were not armed when going out in the villages, we had no
communications, no medical support, no means of rapid evacuation, no
safe-house to go to...we were on our own. But, we didn’t look at it
that way. We had a smile, a positive attitude, we knew the language, we
were sincere and we trusted the people with whom we lived and worked.
And for ninety-nine percent of the situations this is all I needed. For
any other situation, I had fast feet.
Life takes strange twists and turns. In India, I worked on projects
located in Communist dominated villages and worked with the headman and
chairman of the party to ensure success of the projects. Fast forward 3
years, after my PC service and now in the Army, in a different country,
I was expected as an infantry man to close with and destroy these guys.
Go figure... politics vacuums!
John Paskevicz, India-24
| By james (adsl-69-108-238-191.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 69.108.238.191) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 9:52 pm: Edit Post |
Im sorry, my use of military is a general term. i suppose i should have specified what i meant. I can't say that I condemn the military on the whole, just as i praise the peace corps. However, I really can't honor every military official not every military personale is an honorable person. Then however not every peace corps member is honorable either. Yes each plays its part, my apologies to any military person I may have offended.I have know soldiers who work in many areas that peace corps volunteers do, and for this they have my respect. Perhaps we need to blame the government for not weighing the institutions equally(although for vetrans it seems the government has little value)and for us to realize that although generally military personale are doing what they think is best, The intentions of fighting war generally are not for the best. Im sorry,You just can't sell me on the idea that many wars were fought for the freedom of americans, but you can sell me the idea that most wars were fought for american economics. thanks for your response, this is democracy.
| By joycemaggio (wbar2.atl1-4.15.51.251.atl1.dsl-verizon.net - 4.15.51.251) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit Post |
I echo what Shari Jacobson says in her letter from Aug. 4. I couldn't say it better.
| By Nino deProphetis (mail.w-ssd.org - 64.56.37.122) on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 4:27 pm: Edit Post |
The NR comment obviously comes from chief editor Lowler, whom I saw on C-Span last summer. He is not a person worthy of spending time on, and he is certainly not a person worthy of filling William Buckley's shoes. His comments make Ann Coulter look responsible. The biggest supporter of the Peace Corps was Ronald Reagan. Many people I served with were right wing conservatives who felt they were 'spreading democracy'
| By korovin (186-147-58-66.gci.net - 66.58.147.186) on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 4:41 am: Edit Post |
National Review says that it is the soldier that "liberate Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Europe" ... not the Peace Corp volunteer... hmmm... maybe so. They forget to mention that it has the Peace Corp volunteer that has always helped to "win the peace" and will probably continue to do so in the not too-distant future in Afghanistan and Iraq.
| By John Paskevicz (d47-69-146-182.nap.wideopenwest.com - 69.47.182.146) on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 9:37 am: Edit Post |
In the early 60's it was General James M. Gavin (the jumpin' general of D-day fame) who promoted the concept later espoused by JFK that young Americans would "...like to do something more ennobling than watch over other societies in military uniform." Gavin became a supporter of JFK and the Peace Corps.